Economics in One Easy Lesson

Economics, commonly known as the "dismal science," can actually be easily understood. Here are each of the basic economic philosophies explained in simple "two-cow" terms:

Communalism: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and–from time to time–provides you with sour milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

Liberalism: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.

Free-Market Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Centralized, Multi-National-Corporation-Based, Government-Subsidized, Democratic Socialism: You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows and when it dies you write off the depreciation, hire a lobbyist, and garner a government bail-out and tax-breaks in order to purchase two new cows. Repeat.

— Scott

We can only LIVESTRONG™ if we’re GODSTRONG™.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Posted by email from sawagner30’s posterous

Rejection of the Wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers

Originally published by Mike DeVine, as legal editor for The Minority Report

Want to force the Drive-by media to cover Obama’s rejection of the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers and our Constitution that produced the greatest nation on Earth?

Then Obama should be the keynote star speaker at every McCain-Palin campaign event.

One has to question whether many voters that are up for grabs will immediately understand, given our woeful education system partially taken over by socialists that control the schools, Obama’s contempt for American exceptional-ism and the import of his words:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

……

Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

McCain should play Obama’s voice over the loud speakers at every stop and then deconstruct his words as revealing a man that could not, in good faith, uphold the required Oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the precious document he trashes as “fundamentally flawed” above.

Obama sees the Constitution as only a negative document. It is, in that it limits government, but it also positively protects Liberty in so doing.

Obama loves government power, not Liberty for We the People and sees the Warren Court as not having gone far enough! Under a constitution written from the Marxist dreams of his once-met Kenyan “father” (Another Messiah’s with no birth certificate and questions about his father, but this one photo-shopped a fake one and dreams of an atheist Kenyan Father while studying at the knee of a Hawaiian.), not only would a Warren Court let off a murderer that wasn’t read his “Miranda rights”, it would make the government a conviction-proof robber of your wealth to spread around the ‘hood like a piece of the action by him as Boss/Godfather.

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest ongoing governing document on earth. The Liberty it unleashed has produced the marvel of what man can accomplish in the history of the world. How five percent of the world’s population can create such great technological progress and share it. How the poor here would be considered upper middle class most places since the 1830’s. How it set the stage for the only nation to fight a war and then eliminate slavery on moral grounds. How it is the magnet for the dispossessed and even put up a Statue of Liberty to beckon them.

How we produced enough wealth to build a defense strong enough to defend against enslaving megalomaniacs and be responsible for the greatest explosion of free peoples in history, within and beyond our borders in a benevolence unheard of by previous empires.

And as Colin Powell said before he lost his way, the only land we asked for from the liberated was enough to bury the dead that died for their liberty.

Obama considers that Constitution to be fatally flawed because it limits the power of government to control us.

My God! The miracle of the document is how it limits the government so that the potential of free human beings is unleashed.

Obama doesn’t understand that the “negative” document is under girded by a Declaration of Independence that sees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (especially including the right to keep the fruits of our labor as private property), as Creator-God given. He doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, that the secret to why we have so much wealth that he would like to spread to favored groups as pieces of the action is the incentive of the right to private property. God knows he admitted that the question of when humans get the right to life is above his pay grade.

No, Obama hates the Constitution and would rather July 4, commemorate a Declaration of Dependence on his government. How can he take the Oath? Especially on a Bible that contains within the other great pillar of our exceptionalism, i.e. Judeo-Christian values.

No, this is not a claim that he is a Muslim. In fact, this rooster could name many Muslims that I would happily vote for President given their love and allegiance for The Founders and the Constitution and their advocacy of our shared values.

But Obama, like many that attend Christian churches, has a different view. Let his own words indict his contrary world view.

And even there, he has a contrary view.

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)

If that is so, Jesus wasted his time coming to Earth and he certainly did not have to suffer the pain of rejection and crucifixion if there are ways to God other than through Himself.

Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”

Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological gruel.

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called a “false prophet.”

I hope some national journalist or commentator with knowledge of such things asks Obama about this and doesn’t let him get away with re-writing Scripture to suit his political ends.

Obama is not one of us.

I actually have sympathy for Obama and his father-, and mother-(she was a Marxist, too) challenged childhood. No one gets to pick their parents.

But we do get to accept or reject our nation’s heritage, a heritage, that in his case, provided him with a good life, liberty, including, education and the pursuit of happiness, including great wealth.

He explicitly rejects what produced that great life.

He rejects the Father of our Country.

We that embrace that George Washington and his fellow Founders of this nation and Framers of the Constitution, and who love the actual United States of America with its glorious history, must reject Obama and the America he would found, or reap the whirlwind.

Vote McCain-Palin!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

— Scott

We can only LIVESTRONG™ if we’re GODSTRONG™.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Posted by email from sawagner30’s posterous

President’s Cancer Panel Recommends National Priority for Cancer

In a new report Maximizing Our Nation’s Investment in Cancer: Three Crucial Actions for America’s Health the President’s Cancer Panel makes three recommendations to the President that they feel are critical to the battle against cancer in the United States.

Make reducing the cancer burden a national priority.
Ensure that all Americans have timely access to needed health care and disease prevention measures.
End the scourge of tobacco in the United States.
The President’s Cancer Panel was created with the passage of the National Cancer Act in 1971. Its three members have a responsibility to report on barriers to full implementation of the National Cancer Program and make recommendations to overcome them.  Panel members responsible for the 2007-2008 Report were:

LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., of the Howard University College of Medicine
Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D., of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center,
Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and founder of the Lance Armstrong Foundation
In February 2008, President Bush appointed Joe Torre, a cancer survivor and Los Angeles Dodgers manager to replace Lance Armstrong.

Four in ten people in the United States will develop cancer at some point in their lives.  In 2008 more than 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and 565,000 will die.

However, despite the growing US burden of cancer, in developing the 2007-2008 recommendations for the President, the Panel pointed out disturbing trends:

A declining cancer research budget
Avoidable inefficiencies and poor collaboration among governmental, voluntary, industry, and academic organizations working on cancer research
Questions about the appropriate focus and emphasis on cancer research in light of current cancer trends
An aging and increasingly sedentary population
A more and more fragmented and unsustainable health care system
An increasing number of uninsured, underinsured, and underserved Americans due to a steady erosion of public and private health care coverage
Continued tobacco use, reduced cancer control funding, and increased tobacco marketing targeting young people, women, and other vulnerable groups
Complacency and a lack of understanding and sense of urgency among policymakers, the research and health communities, and the public about the growing burden of cancer
In their Executive Summary, the Panel challeng
ed Americans and their leaders to make cancer an urgent priority saying,

It no longer is acceptable to say that because cancer is complex, disparities in care are entrenched, and the tobacco companies are powerful, we cannot solve the problem of cancer in America. We can. But to do so, cancer must become a national priority—one that is guided by strong leadership; fueled by adequate funding and productive collaboration and compromise among governments, industry, and institutions; and embraced by individuals who understand and accept their personal role in preventing cancer and in demanding meaningful progress.

I am one of that forty percent of Americans whose life has been touched by cancer — too many times in my own life and that of my family and friends.

I welcome the strong words of the President’s Cancer Panel, and I hope that despite the frightening financial crisis we find ourselves in, the pressure of two costly wars, and a change in Washington leadership, we will listen and learn!

By letting government funding for cancer research stagnate, we are literally eating our seed corn.  There is exciting research going on, but it cannot continue without the brains and vision of young researchers.  However, as the Panel points out, they are being forced out of cancer research by dwindling funding and lack of opportunities for their careers to grow.

We know how to prevent many colorectal cancers and find others early . . . but millions of Americans cannot access the simplest screening tests because they have no insurance.

Cancer is a war that we can win.  I believe that with my whole heart, and I spend many hours each day working on the struggle to win it.  I urge you all — citizens, researchers, legislators, President — to join Dr. Leffall, Dr. Kripke, Lance Armstrong, Joe Torre and me in the fight.

— Scott

We can only LIVESTRONG™ if we’re GODSTRONG™.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Posted by email from sawagner30’s posterous

Interesting Analysis by Wesley Pruden

PRUDEN: A game-changer by Obama
Wesley Pruden

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

If your toilet is stopped up by something really big and smells really bad, you’ll probably need a plumber. Joe the Plumber, as it turns out, diagnosed the trouble, and yesterday we learned what it was. It smells really bad.

The tape recording of an interview that Barack Obama gave to Radio Station WBEZ in Chicago in 2001 surfaced, and in that interview Mr. Obama, then a law professor and a state senator, lays out how he would redistribute the wealth. He sounds like a man with a plan.

The interview explains a lot, beginning with the attempt, abetted by a mainstream media that no longer tries to hide its slavish obeisance to the Democratic campaign, to destroy Joe the Plumber and shut down discussion of the implications of what the candidate said.

Mr. Obama doesn’t think much of the Constitution, or even of the Supreme Court justices who have rewritten it over the years to accommodate notions of "social justice." The Warren Court, which wrote finis to public-school segregation with its unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, has been decried since as radical, but it wasn’t radical enough. Earl Warren only pretended to be a soldier of the revolution.

One of the "tragedies of the civil-rights movement," Mr. Obama says, is that the Supreme Court did not address redistribution of wealth, probably because of the inherent difficulty of achieving such goals through the courts. The Supreme Court did not break from the restraints of the Constitution and "we still suffer from that." Mr. Obama is not "optimistic" that the Supreme Court can achieve redistribution of wealth – of taking from the workers to give to the deadbeats – but he obviously thinks he knows how to do it. A president with a compliant Congress, which he expects to be in January, can do it through legislation and "administration."

The Barack Obama of this interview clearly does not think much of what the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us: "The Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on to this day. The framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country."

Mr. Obama is a gifted politician, with the smarts to understand that this could be the "game-changer" that leaves his campaign, almost picture-perfect until now, in ruins. He understands that he has to fly under the radar for now. That’s why his campaign apparatus moves swiftly to dismiss questions about the Obama paper trail, such as it is, and to crush anyone bold and foolish enough to inquire into the real Barack Obama.

Joe the Plumber learned the hard way what happens to such questioners, and when a television reporter in Florida asked Joe Biden whether his running mate is a Marxist economist, good old Joe, usually eager to talk about everything, acted as if the interviewer had accused him of serial killing or child molesting. Some things just aren’t to be talked about, not now. Not Barack Obama’s radical notions about redistributing the wealth – which is, after all, the essence of Marxism. Not about how he intends to replace fundamental American values with values that most Americans, if they knew about them, would regard as alien and hostile.

If John McCain wants to change the game over the next seven days, he’ll have to break through the media screen to spell out, clearly, often and in detail, the implications of what Barack Obama actually means when he talks about how to redistribute the wealth. To redistribute wealth, you first have to confiscate it from those who earned it with hard work, and the way to do that is with confiscatory taxes. Then you give it to those who didn’t earn it. Such explanations, made with cool detachment, once would have been the work of the newspapers and even the television networks. But not this year. Mr. McCain can expect real grief from the media when the polls tighten.

There’s nothing ambiguous about Mr. Obama’s radical views, as revealed in this interview. He clearly thinks the Constitution was a "tragedy," that the men who wrote it were not the revolutionary heroes plain Americans regard them to be, and their work must be corrected by the surviving radicals of the ’60s and their progeny. Anyone who listens to this interview, available on YouTube.com, understands why Michelle Obama was never proud of her country until she thought the opportunity was at hand to destroy the country to save it, and why Barack Obama could spend 20 years comfortably listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright exhort God to damn America.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

— Scott

We can only LIVESTRONG™ if we’re GODSTRONG™.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Posted by email from sawagner30’s posterous

Living With Cancer

Well it’s coming up on 2 years since my diagnosis of Stage IV Colon Cancer. Feels like a lifetime. There’s not a week, a day, a moment that goes by that I don’t realize I am a cancer survivor. In fact I am a blessed survivor. I am gearing up for the current round of tests that will be upon me. First up is the annual colonoscopy. In all reality the procedure in easy. It’s the prep that will kick you and it starts tomorrow evening.

I’ve gone for quite sometime without really writing any thoughts down. I’ve just let it go by with no good reason. So I will ease back into it. Thanks to my family for keeping after me.

— Scott

We can only LIVESTRONG™ if we’re GODSTRONG™.

Posted by email from sawagner30’s posterous